Haryana

Ambala

CC/287/2016

Surbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Dashing Mobile World - Opp.Party(s)

Akhil Gupta

13 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 287 of 2016

                                                          Date of Institution         : 25.07.2016

                                                          Date of decision   : 13.01.2017

 

          Surbir Singh Malik son of Sh. Takhat Singh, resident of 103176, Ambala         City.

……. Complainant.

 

 

1. M/s Dashing Mobile world, Jagandhri Gate, Ambala city, through its proprietor.
2. M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 3^rd and 4^th Floor, tower-C, Vipul Tech. Square, Gold Course  Road, Sector 43, Gurgaon-122002, through its Managing Director.
3. M/s Kohli Telecom, (Samsung Customer Service Centre), 374/A, Prem Nagar, Near Gurudwara, Ambala City, through its Proprietor/Manager.

 

 ….…. Respondents.

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                             

 

 

Present:       Sh. Akhil Gupta, counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh. Rajeev Sachdeva, counsel for the OP no. 2 and 3.                     

                   None for OP No. 1.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone make Sansung, Model SM-A700FZDGINS, serial No. RZ8H11A6LMN IMEI NO. 359926062487908 from OP No. 1 vide bill No. 11677 dated 22.03.2016 for a sum of Rs. 22,990/- but after one month, the mobile phone started giving problems like mobile hanging and become very hot. After the complaint of the complainant, Op No. 3 i.e. Service Centre removed the above said defect and handed over the mobile phone to the complainant and the mobile started working but after about 15-20 days the mobile phone again started giving the same trouble as the same hang up and become very hot while using the mobile phone. Further submitted that the mobile hand set again and again occurring the same problem after removing the above said defects by OP No. 3 i.e. Service Centre. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OP No. 1 for replacement of the mobile in question but the OP NO. 1 flatly refused to do the same. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                 Upon notice, Op No. 2 and 3 appeared and filed written statement submitting that the compliant of the complainant alleged manufacturing defect in the product and it is pertinent to mention hereby that alleged defect cannot be determined on the simplicities submissions of the complainant and needs a proper analysis test report to confirm the same. Further submitted that the complainant has miserably failed to prove the alleged manufacturing/technical fault neither placed on record any analysis test report for the perusal of the Hon’ble Forum and in the absence of any technical report on record, the complaint of the complainant deserves to be dismissed.

                   On the other hand, OP No. 1 not bothered to appear despite issuance of notice.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X along with documents as annexure C-1 and C-5 and close his evidence. On the other counsel for the Ops No. 2 and 3 also tendered affidavit as Annexure R-X alongwith documents Annuexre R-1 to R-3 and close his evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and carefully gone through the case file. The case of complainant is that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone make Samsung, Model SM-A700FZDGINS, serial                        No. RZ8H11A6LMN IMEI NO. 359926062487908 from OP No. 1 vide bill                    No. 11677 dated 22.03.2016 for a sum of Rs. 22,990/- Annexure C-1 which was having one year warranty started giving problems as per job Sheet (Annexure                C-4) having ‘heat up problem.  Perusal of the job sheet reveals that the mobile set occurred problems due to its heat up problem and the version of complainant duly supported by his affidavit reveals that the mobile in question started giving problems i.e. mobile hanging and become very hot. So, it is clear from the job sheet as well as affidavit of the representatives of the Ops that the mobile in question have heat up problem which is tantamount to manufacturer defect and same was not rectified by the Ops.

                   On the other hand, Ops No. 2 and 3 take the specific plea that the complainant visited the service Centre on 11.06.2016  and alongwith the mobile set having the problem i.e. Heat up problem in the mobile set but the Ops No. 2 and 3 attached the hob sheet in which it has been mentioned that “software done, set is ok and repair completely”. From the perusal of the documents and affidavit of the Ops Anindya Bose who is representative of the Manufacturing company has mentioned in his affidavit that after rectifying the problem in the mobile on 11.06.2016, complainant again approached the same problem i.e. heat up problem that the engineer found “cut marks on SMI tray by cutter due to which handset is heating” and same has informed to the complainant but the complainant not agree with the then the complainant asked to visit service centre for the physically inspection of handset but he never visited the service centre. He further mentioned in the affidavit the complainant has approached to the service centre on 06.07.2016 with the problem of heating up in the mobile set and the same was checked and found ok and handed over the complainant to the same day but the complainant was adamant to replace the mobile set on the ground that company has given the one year warranty.

                   It means, mobile hand set is again occurred the same problems and complainant again approached to the Op No. 3 i.e. Service Centre for the same problem. The representative give the affidavit that they have checked the mobile and found ok but they failed to place the above said checking report/job card. Hence, we have no option to believe the version of the complainant that the mobile in question having manufacture problem.

                   We find that the OP No. 1 has sold the defective mobile which was manufacturer by OP No. 2 and service centre has not rendered the proper service to the complainant who is a franchisee of the Op No. 2 i.e. Manufacturer Company. Thus, we are of the confirmed view that it is a fit case where direction to Ops can be given for refund of the cost of mobile in question alongwith litigation charges.  

5                           In view of above said discussion, the present complaint is hereby allowed accordingly and Ops jointly and severally are directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

          (i)      To refund the cost          of mobile set to the tune          of Rs.22,990/- as per Annexure C-1. It is       made clear that if the amount is recovered       from Ops No. 1 and 3 then the both Ops i.e.       dealer and service centre can recover the    amount from OP No. 2.

                                                (ii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as a costs of                                                     proceedings.

                   Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

                                                                                      Sd/-

Announced on :13.01.2017                                  (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

                    Sd/-

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member